When a patient consults a doctor about an ailment, she has every right to know the diagnosis and the line of treatment being prescribed. She also has a right to know the risks involved in the treatment, the options available to the patient, the side effects of the drugs being prescribed, other lines of treatment or options available to the patient, the time schedule involved and, of course, the cost factor.

But unfortunately, these rights are yet to be fully recognised by the medical fraternity. It’s for this reason that consumer groups have been demanding codification of patient’s rights through a legislation. Meanwhile, the consumer courts, through their orders, have been protecting the rights of patients, but I would like to draw attention to a recent order that fully recognises the patient’s right to information. In fact this order of the apex consumer court chastising a doctor for ignoring the right of his patient to adequate information should act as a shot in the arm for all those campaigning for patients’ rights. It should also send a clear signal to all medical professionals that the courts will not condone such violation of patients’ rights.

Laying utmost emphasis on this crucial aspect of the doctor-patient relationship, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed thus: “The Doctor is dutybound to inform the patient about the details of the disease afflicting him, the various alternatives available to him and the risks involved in the proposed treatment. Obviously in this case, the patient was not informed of any of these...”

The order stems from a complaint filed by a factory worker, Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya. His allegation was that Dr Shyam Kumar had promised that his vision would improve after the surgeries, but instead, his vision had completely failed after the operations in 1991 and 1992. Dr Kumar, in his response to the complaint, argued that the patient’s loss of vision could not be attributed to negligence on his part. However, he could not produce any medical records to prove his point.

Upholding the decision of the lower consumer courts to award a compensation of Rs 1,85,000 along with 12 per cent interest, the apex consumer court emphasised that if the patient’s eyes were already weak, then the doctor should have informed him about it and also about the chances of success of the operations, before undertaking them. The doctor, the Commission said, was dutybound to do so. Also, he did not produce any medical records to prove his point about the patient’s eye condition. (Dr Shyam Kumar vs Mr Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya, RP No 1486 of 2001)